Re: May's Banal Rant

This is the second in the series of articles I am forwarding from the
"sublist" discussion I mentioned. Again, I am excising all pointers to the
identity of the person who wished his views not be publicized.

This is the longest of the articles.

--Tim


>Date: Mon, 2 Jun 1997 12:07:48 -0700
>To: xxxxx
>From: Tim May <tcmay@got.net>
>Subject: Re: May's Banal Rant
>Cc: xxxxxx

>At 11:00 AM -0700 6/2/97, xxxxx wrote:

(Thanks me for not being venomous, as he had been expecting, and says he
was not on the Cypherpunks list in 1993 so he doesn't recall what it was
like back then.)

>I can tell you that much of the discussion back then was about the precise
>things I have  had in my .sig all these years (the core part).  And this
>was during the incidents at Ruby Ridge and Waco.
>
>Is calling for a bounty in untraceable cash to be placed on the head of
>the shooter at Ruby Ridge, one Lon Horiuchi, radical enough for you? (The
>BATFags consider such threats seriously enough that Horiuchi apparently
>now has a new identity, accoding to my militia friends, who say no
>"Horiuchi" can be found in any current records they have searched...and
>one of their sources in the Empire confirmed this.)

(Says the tone of the list and of Libertarian politics is more strident
than it has ever been.)

>Actually, I was around during the anti-Viet Nam war days--I voted for John
>Hospers of the LP in 1972, and participated in various anti-war events at
>UC Santa Barbara, including a notable evening when Highway 101 was shut
>down for several hours by protestors. The level of rancor between
>government and others (including Libertarians) was vastly greater.
>
>And in 1993 the Clipper announcement was met with incredible venom on the
>list. You really need to go back and read what was said about Denning,
>Freeh, Kallstrom, and Herr Clinton. We even had a couple of emergency
>physical meetings, and the level of sabotage discussed was far greater
>than anything recently.
>
>Also, those "radical days" saw some very radical stuff indeed. The
>anonymous posting of the corporate secrets of the traitorous company
>Mykotronx helped to nuke that company. Ditto for the Clipper internal
>memoranda posted to the list via remailers.
>
>(Nowadays we'd have a list member working for Mykotronx and urging us to
>be "more reasonable.")
>
>Also, 1993-4 was the heyday of the Zimmermann imbroglio, and there was
>much heated discussion of this.
>
>(Nowadays, Zimmermann wants Cypherpunks to rally behind his company's GAK
>system, and he is aghast at the "anarchy" discussed on the list. He was
>opposed to the libertarian ideology of the list back in '93-94 of course,
>but then it suited him to have the Cypherpunks defending him. Now he views
>us as impediments to his business prospects, and employees of PGP, Inc.
>are now _very_ circumspect about what they write on the list.)
>
>I agree that there is a sense of "enough is enough" in the Cypherpunk
>community these days. Everytime we turn around there are new restrictions,
>new calls for censorship, new clamorings for controlling the Net, and even
>new arrests.
>
>I disagree that the posts of today are significantly more strident than
>they were in the Clipper days, or the Waco days, etc. Maybe a few comments
>have sounded especially angry, but these are angry times. Again, if you
>don't like the threads, start some of your own.
>
>I believe I'm under a fair risk of being named as a co-conspirator of
>Bell's...some of my e-mail to him is probably what the cops are referring
>to when they speak about using cryptography to facillitate markets in
>various acts. Yes, this has made me prepare for a raid on my home, and,
>yes, I have bought a couple of cases of ammunition and made sure my stuff
>is ready. I don't intend to be shot in the middle of the night in the dark
>as i reach for a handgun to defend myself when the "entry team" ignores
>the Fourth Amendment and simply bursts into my room.
>
>(Lost in the modern debate about rights is how we got to this stage, to
>where it is _expected_ that cops will dress in paramilitary garb (Nomex
>ski masks, black clothing, carrying suppressed MP-5s) and launch raids on
>the homes of suspects. No knocks on the doors, no presentation of
>duly-authorized search warrants, no punishment for those who kill
>innocents or others on such searches.... what a fucked up country we have
>become.)

(He says that many influential posters to Cypherpunks no longer post.)


>I still post. That so many others don't is not my problem. (Hint: Analyze
>the archives to see who used to post a lot. Many of them--in fact,
>essentially _all_ of them--decreased their posting volumes long before the
>comments of mine in the last few months that you seeem to think drove them
>away. Look at the actual numbers.)
>
>For various and sundry reasons. I won't catalog them again here, even
>though I've thought of some additional important reasons I left out
>earlier. Maybe I'll write a new essay on how the list has changed and how
>the membership taxonomy works out.

(He says that I am more provocatively violent-sounding in my posts the past
few months than before.)


>In a few instances, yes. So? People have various views at various times.
>And I'd say calling for an anonymous murder contract on Horiuchi was
>pretty violent-sounding. (Such calls were not made by me, though I've
>recently said the killers of Donald Scott, the Malibu doctor raided by
>BATF/LA officers should be given a fair trial and if found guilty,
>executed. What's "violent" about expecting the same justice for cops that
>we see being applied to McVeigh, Kaczinski, and so on?)

(He claims that atttention from the media and from law enforcment in the
Cyphepunks list is probably greater now than in the past. Note from my
comments below that I disagree with him.)

>This is part of the "taxonomy of membership" I'm talking about. We get all
>kinds of subscribers. Some just hit-and-run, some clueless, some seeking
>support for their pet programs or products, some loonies. (If you think
>TruthMonger or that Circle of Eunuchs guy is any crazier than Detweiler
>was in '93-94, go back and read his stuff.)
>
>And in fact the media fascination with Cypherpunks was provably greater in
>'92-94 than today. Think of those big cover stories in Wired, Whole Earth
>Review, The Village Voice, etc.  This is so for various reasons, and I
>won't bemoan or applaud our current relative obscurity.

(He claims that for these various reasons my voice is probably more
dominant or influential than ever before--given the low volumes of posts, I
might agree--and says it is too bad I am so strident.)


>I am not writing that much differently than I did in earlier years, if you
>check the archives. I have made very few "shoot the pigs" comments.
>
>(And, by the way, the period surrounding Waco and Ruby Ridge was filled
>with discussions of armaments, calibers, etc. Some of the Bay Area CPs
>even started a shooting club....I have not gone to any of their shoots, as
>I live 100 miles south of San Francisco....plus, I have my own favorite
>ranges nearby and I'm not much on teaching newbies to shoot.)
>
>It is true that Eric Hughes is off doing other things. John Gilmore was
>never much a writer of essays, and he's now distanced himself from the
>list (for obvious reasons). Hal Finney still writes, but the reasons he
>writes less are obvious (job, and he's said things several times). And so
>on.
>
>Others have left the list. Peter Wayner is gone. Carl Ellison is gone. So?
>No one expected a perpetual level of interest. When I talk to Eric
>(Hughes), we both shake our heads in amazement that a group we started
>five years ago is still rolling along; we never set out to create a
>permanent group.
>
>And, unlike some groups which are almost explicity centered around a
>public spokesman or small cadre, the Cypherpunks group has never had a
>spokesman, never had a public charter, never had a policy analysis group,
>never had most of the things the alphabet soupers have had.
>
>We're just a virtual coffeehouse, or pub, or even Munich beerhall. Anyone
>is free to comment on anything. The only attempt at censoship--the recent
>one by Sandfort and Gilmore--failed miserably (and predictably) and in
>fact scattered the nexus of the group to multiple sites. (The role of that
>event, and the subsequent shrinkage of the list from 1200 subscribers to
>just about 200 subscribers, as best I can tell, is the subject of another
>essay. In my view, the attempted censorship of the list did grievous
>damage to the list, and inasmuch as we don't "recruit" for new members, it
>may be a long time before the list ever gets as active as it used to be,
>if ever. The low posting volume tends to magnify the significance of the
>posts which do appear...this is not something I see as my problem or my
>responsibility to try to change.)

>And it's a pity this entire discussion is not happening on the main list!
>
>You, xxxxx, choose to...<excised to protect his identity>... and to keep
>your comments off the list. I know ...<excised>.... but you really should
>be making your comments about the list and its topics ON THE LIST!
>
>Isn't this obvious? You can hardly complain about my "radical" views when
>you hold your counsel, can you?
>
>In fact, I'll respect your wish not to have your comments distributed
>beyond the list you have chosen, but I plan to take my own comments, sans
>your quotes, and use them as the basis of an essay to the list on these
>and related topics.
>
>In this regard, I thank you for catalyzing some thoughts.
>
>--Tim May
>
>

There's something wrong when I'm a felon under an increasing number of laws.
Only one response to the key grabbers is warranted: "Death to Tyrants!"
---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:----
Timothy C. May              | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money,
tcmay@got.net  408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero
W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA  | knowledge, reputations, information markets,
Higher Power: 2^1398269     | black markets, collapse of governments.
"National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."

On Mon, 2 Jun 1997, Tim May wrote:

>>I believe I'm under a fair risk of being named as a co-conspirator
>>of Bell's...

But on the contrary, I clearly remember that you were one of very
few who actually warned Jim Bell in clear language that he might be
crossing the line in some particular rants, where he parted from the
more or less pure theoretical level of discussion and hinted 'threats'
at almost-named 'targets'. Of course, he was in many peoples killfiles
and others just wouldn't bother to comment on what was generally looked
upon as lunacy - he has many more 'friends' on the list now than he ever
had before his arrest, and that's understandable (protection of the
right for loons to speak up). Your warning him (twice, I think) was
a show of good-heartedness, really, as he might well have listened more
to you than to those publically dismissing him with just utter disgust
(like Phill Hallam-Baker*).


Asgaard

*Why is it that people of finer (?) English heritage often has a double
second name? Someone once suggested to me that it originates from having
(or an ancestor having) adopted the name of both one's 'marital' father
and one's biological father, for reasons of property inheritance, but
I never believed that one. Just curious.

> *Why is it that people of finer (?) English heritage often has a double
> second name? Someone once suggested to me that it originates from having
> (or an ancestor having) adopted the name of both one's 'marital' father
> and one's biological father, for reasons of property inheritance, but
> I never believed that one. Just curious.


I believe historically this would not be the case, for obvious reasons of 
reputation.

Today, a few English people take both their mothers and fathers names, 
for example, a friend of mine is William Casson-Smith, of course, not all 
names sound good like this, ie. Paul Bradley-Hemsley, interestingly they 
only sound right if the second name has one less syllable than the first.

        Datacomms Technologies data security
       Paul Bradley, Paul@fatmans.demon.co.uk
  Paul@crypto.uk.eu.org, Paul@cryptography.uk.eu.org    
       Http://www.cryptography.home.ml.org/
      Email for PGP public key, ID: FC76DA85
     "Don`t forget to mount a scratch monkey"

At 11:21 AM -0700 6/3/97, Asgaard wrote:
>On Mon, 2 Jun 1997, Tim May wrote:
>
>>>I believe I'm under a fair risk of being named as a co-conspirator
>>>of Bell's...
>
>But on the contrary, I clearly remember that you were one of very
>few who actually warned Jim Bell in clear language that he might be
>crossing the line in some particular rants, where he parted from the
>more or less pure theoretical level of discussion and hinted 'threats'
>at almost-named 'targets'. Of course, he was in many peoples killfiles

Indeed I did, and this was before I knew anything about his (alleged)
seeking out of home addresses of IRS agents and (alleged) stink bomb
attacks on IRS offices.

However, the focus, at least for why he has been denied bail, is strongly
on the "assassination politics" essays and communications, and on
"overthrowing the government" sorts of things. (This according to the
affidavit, and according to what Greg Broiles relayed from Bell's
court-appointed lawyer.)

I expect some of my writings are involved...it would be hard for them _not_
to be on Bell's computer, or even printed out.

(Bell originally proposed his AP in Usenet discussions, and was vague on
possible payment mechanisms. He know nothing to speak of about public key
cryptography and untraceable digital cash. Hal Finney referred him to my
writings on how untraceable digital cash could be used to set up
untraceable contract assassinations, and Bell joined the Cypherpunks list
soon thereafter. This was in the fall of 1995. I have always argued that
Bell's AP is just a gimmicky form of the more direct approach: using
anonymous contact mechanisms and untraceable digital cash to directly
arrange hits on those one wants dead. With third-party anonymous escrow
services to hold the untraceable cash (and uncashable to them, probably,
but not necessarily) until confirmation of the death has occurred.

This is not advocacy of this system, just exploration of the implications
and possible effects of strong cryptography. And I've been exploring these
ideas since 1987...my 1988 "Crypto Anarchist Manifesto" explicitly refers
to this use of untraceable payments. And Chaum has elliptically referred to
such uses, though he is an order of magnitude more circumspect than I am.

(I don't have a company to sell to other companies, or products to get
endorsements and export approvals and all that for. I can afford to examine
implications and even see how the work fits in with my political views
without fear of offending either Bill Gates or Marc Rotenberg...or even
Louis Freeh.)

I hope they come to my house to ask me about my writings. I will tell them
that unless they have a search warrant (or arrest warrant, or probable
cause to arrest me there on the spot) they'll have to get off my property
immediately. I have been reading with great interest the advice given by
Duncan, Greg, and others, and I intend to provide no help to the Feds, nor
to give them any information beyond my name, nor to let them ask me about
my own writings. I will demand that I be arrested and then given a lawyer
(I certainly don't plan to write out a check for $5000 to some local city
lawyer just because they've hauled me in...I'll let a court-appointed
lawyer do the grunt work). If they linger on my property without providing
a valid search or arrest warrant, I will give them a count of 30 and then
start firing. People have a right to defend their property against unlawful
incursions by the Feds and the local cops. A 30-count seems like more that
enough time for them to get off my property.

(If you think this is unlikely, recall the Founding Event of the Electronic
Frontier Foundation, the appearance of FBI agents at the rural home of John
Perry Barlow to interrogate him about matters regarding Operation Sun Devil
(or maybe it was the nuPrometheus League case...my memory has faded).
Barlow was so incensed at the cluelessness of the FBI agents and their
interrogation of him that he called Mitch Kapor to suggest something be
done. Gilmore got involved soon thereafter. Thus was the EFF born.)


>*Why is it that people of finer (?) English heritage often has a double
>second name? Someone once suggested to me that it originates from having
>(or an ancestor having) adopted the name of both one's 'marital' father
>and one's biological father, for reasons of property inheritance, but
>I never believed that one. Just curious.

I don't know. But I've noticed some Swedish double names, too. Same mystery
as why some lawyers put "Esquire" after their name, the canonical
yuppie-fake Brit name being:

"Winston Smith-Yates, III, Esq."

Yuppies in the U.S. have often gone to the "feminist-friendly"
hyphenization of their names, claiming it gives their children both names.

(Oh yeah? It just pushes the problem one level deeper in the stack, as
_their_ children than have to contend with being "Suzie
Smith-Yates-Hallam-Baker." I like the Icelandic solution where girl
children are "Suziesdottir" and boy children are "Winstonsson.")

Oh, and in the U.S. it is often the women who go for these hyphenated
names, while their husbands stick to the less awkward single name. Seems
sexist to me, but it's their choice to stick themselves with these
career-limiting hyphenated names. (We used to have a woman engineer at
Intel with one of these hyphenated Yuppie names...I'm sure our jokes about
her overly long name did not help her gain any respect.)

(New Age yuppies in America also like to do really, really stupid things
like combining their names into neologisms like combining Rotenberg and
Froomkin, just to pick two examples out of the air (:-), into travesties
like "Rotenkin." Or New Age nonsense like "Skysinger" and "Dolphinplay.")

--Tim May-Heden, I, non-Esq.







There's something wrong when I'm a felon under an increasing number of laws.
Only one response to the key grabbers is warranted: "Death to Tyrants!"
---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:----
Timothy C. May              | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money,
tcmay@got.net  408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero
W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA  | knowledge, reputations, information markets,
Higher Power: 2^1398269     | black markets, collapse of governments.
"National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."